Hilary Swank is physically perfect for the part of Amelia Earhart: Lean, lanky and suitably androgynous, she wears the aviation legend's trademark leather jacket and boyish haircut well. But if critics are to be believed, 'Amelia', directed by Mira Nair, suffers from a too-reverential approach and a boringly old-fashioned by-the-numbers biopic format that never conveys the thrill of flight or what exactly drove Earhart to push herself to such limits. That said, the general consensus is that the film is lovely to look at and covers all the right historical bases; it simply lacks the passion and excitement audiences expect from the story of a such a trailblazing American pioneer. See what reviewers are saying below.The New York Post: "A lazy coffee-table book of a movie, 'Amelia' is dressed to the nines with nowhere to go, its hackneyed script and Mira Nair's unfocused direction never allowing Hilary Swank's performance as legendary aviatrix Amelia Earhart to soar."
Roger Ebert: "Hilary Swank uncannily embodies my ideas about Earhart in Mira Nair's 'Amelia.' ... Swank is an actress who doesn't fit in many roles, but when she's right, she's right... 'Amelia' tells this story with sound performances and impeccable period detail. [But] that's the trouble with Amelia Earhart's life, seen strictly as movie material. What we already know is what we get. 'Amelia' is a perfectly sound biopic, well directed and acted, about an admirable woman."
The L.A. Times: "A disappointing rendering of the remarkable life of Amelia Earhart. Mira Nair [is] so tentative with her legend that all the reverence and tiptoeing around grounds a film that should have soared. Like her subject, the filmmaker gets lost in the clouds"
Hilary Swank interview for 'Amelia'
Watch a clip from 'Amelia'
'Amelia' showtimes & tickets
Time: "[A] pretty but disappointing biopic ... The movie dutifully covers the high points and a few details you didn't learn in grade school ... but it leaves the odd impression of being merely a very long trailer for a film you'd actually love to see."
Entertainment Weekly: "A frustratingly old-school, Hollywood-style, inspirational biopic about Amelia Earhart that doesn't trust a viewer's independent assessment of the famous woman pictured on the screen. ... How could so tradition-busting a role model have resulted in so square, stiff, and earthbound a movie?"
USA Today: "Amelia goes airborne but never fully soars. It's hampered by a too-reverential portrait of the record-breaking aviator. ... Though it is fun watching Swank relish her highflying adventure, it's too bad that a film about a daring and audacious woman taking on staggering challenges plays it so safe."
Variety: "To say that 'Amelia' never gets off the ground would be an understatement; it barely makes it out of the hangar. Handsomely mounted yet dismayingly superficial, Mira Nair's film offers snazzy aerial photography and inspirational platitudes in lieu of insight."
The New York Times: "With her rangy figure, Ms. Swank fills Earhart's coveralls and leather jackets nicely. But there's little to the performance other than the actress's natural earnestness and smiles so enormous, persistent and consuming that the rest of Earhart soon fades, much like the Cheshire Cat."
Reader Comments (17)
bill at 1:56AM on Oct 24th 2009
I was expecting more of an adventure then a sappy romance. There was no real background to her aviation beginings, or to the amazing aircraft she flew. I guess I expected something like James Stewart's "Spirt of St. Louis" I was disapointed with "Amelia" and at times found myself dozing off! The only part that brought me out of my snooze was at the end where she desperatly seeks the tiny island she never finds. As a flyer myself I'd hoped for more of a flying adventure. Wait for it on the late show. Then you can turn it off.
Pepi at 8:37AM on Oct 24th 2009
Definitely a BORE! It is obvious the director has never been a pilot. Even student pilots would create more exciting visuals and better dialogue.
Flying is an art, and in 1937 flying was a technological, extremely innovative, just magical event. None of that is shown. This film is a sad interpretation of a hero, and a libelous portrayal about someone who also died, her navigator.
CHUCK EDWARDS at 2:39PM on Oct 24th 2009
As far as I'm concerned ALL of the reviews SUCK big time. What more did these people want? Amelia was NOT around to write the screenplay. Hollywood brought history to the screen as they have done for years with legends like the Kennedys, presidents, athletes even villans. Fortunately THIS IS IT features Michael himself. Just seeing Hillary Swank being the perfect actress to play Amelia was worth the price of my senior citizen ticket. It was like getting a chance to meet the lady of the sky in the 30's. I would feel the same way about Bob Hope if Kelsey Grammer played the part. Now that Amelia's tainted reviews are all over the internet I hope it doesn't stop people from giving the movie a chance. See it on the big screen where it belongs and don't wait for the DVD and see it on what you may call your big screen in high definition. Just remember the theater's big screen is probably bigger than your house and the theater's sound is breathtaking. Thank you Hollywood.
noel at 3:04PM on Oct 24th 2009
An interminable film, and very boring -- not at all like the Spirit of St. Louis movie about Lindberg. What did George Putnam ever see in Amelia Earhart that made him fall in love with her? Was Amelia a closet lesbian? Was there ever any real passion (sex) between Gene Vidal and Amelia? Why should we grieve abiout Amelia's tragic end (no one held a gun to her head to force her on her final flight, and she risked, and lost, not only her own life, but her navigator's as well)? NONE of these questions are addressed, much less answered, in these absolutely stultefying movie. NONE of the characters came to life, and I think the director is to blame for this failure.
Sam at 10:57PM on Oct 24th 2009
She was not a particularly good pilot in my opinion. She wrecked several aircraft and had to have a navigator with her. Some of which quit because of their fear of her flying ability. She became famous only because she was a female. A male pilot of the same era, with the same flying record, would have been grounded.
TheRealHowardS at 4:56PM on Oct 24th 2009
No, Sam, she was not famous because she was a female. She was famous because she was Mrs. George Putnam. Mr. Putnam was one of the most successful promoters of his day. Your other comments are right on the mark.
Trisha at 4:09PM on Oct 24th 2009
I can't think of anything more boring than Hollywood's version of this great lady. As soon as I saw that Richard Gere was in it (who I usually like), I knew it would be some sappy romance instead of an adventure movie. Hollywood- newsflash- we're smarter than you think.
Steven at 4:50PM on Oct 24th 2009
It is always amusing to hear from critics who have never made a movie but feel qualified to critique one. Then we are treated to opinions from Pepi, bill, and noel, who must have stayed out late the night before and couldn't stay awake during the movie so blamed it on the director for not answering every question they had about why Ms. Earhart wanted to be a flyer. Then there's this guy named Sam who claimed she wasn't a very good pilot. How would you know? Did you ever fly with her? Pretty pompous conclusion on his part. Sounds like you four are just jealous of her accomplishments even if her life ended in trajedy. Go rake the leaves in your backyard. At least you'll be safe there.
Sam at 5:17PM on Oct 25th 2009
Actually I am basing my opinion on the fact that I flew professionally for 10 years, about 40 years ago, and in reading about her and her biographies have noted the same opinion by a number of her peers who, at the time, expressed similar misgivings.
I am definitly not jealous of her accomplishments but do not find her overall aviation history to be very impressive. I think that the comment above by "TheRealHowardS" concerning the fact that she was Mrs George Putnam is quite correct.
Ginger at 11:51PM on Oct 24th 2009
I for one, cannot wait to see the movie. I have read about Ms. Earhart and what she was was this, and still is, an inspiration to all women because she did at that time what other women did not, took a man's world by the horns and said, "here I am" and I am going to do this because it is something I HAVE to do. I have to fly. Period. Yes, she inspired me, as I am also a pilot. Thanks Amelia. I'll be seeing you tomorrow at the movies!
Connie at 12:13AM on Oct 25th 2009
I saw the movie after reading discouraging reviews; I was pleasantly surprised. I had no expectations or preconceived notions about the movie. I wasn’t expecting it to be a tribute to aviation triumphs or to a female hero. I simply enjoyed the realistic and human elements of the movie. Yes Amelia is an icon, but this movie doesn’t focus on that. How many of us would know her today if it hadn’t been for the promotional efforts of her husband? I enjoyed sharing the very human aspects of a heroine’s life.
James T. Sailors at 12:43AM on Oct 25th 2009
I just came from "Amelia", and I was very impressed with the performance of Hilary Swank. The
Amilia Earhart story is a bio, and I thought it was
outstanding, and Hilary's performance is worthy of
an award. I for the life of me cannot understand the critcs. Do they want the F word every other time a person opens their mouth, or blood violence galore in the movies. Sitting thru the previews is
nauseating with the explosions, violence, killing etc. A true story of an American legend is refreshing and frankly some scenes brought tears to my eyes. Kudos to the performance. Jim
Nancy at 1:12AM on Oct 25th 2009
I don't care what yal say! I am going to see that movie. I just LOVE Richard Gere and Hilary Swank.
:)
ian at 9:51PM on Oct 25th 2009
It was a great movie, exhilarating charming and emotional. Hilary Swank once again puts in an Oscar level performance.
Oh sure some want the usual stereoptypic fireball crashes, screaming fights of jealous lovers and an in depth study of her sexuality,why she wears trousers ,a tie and short hair, but for me it was a relief not to have all that hairywood psudoe analysis. This women was courageous, focussed and devoted to flying. As such it was a very entertaining and satisfying movie.
Ted Striker at 10:01PM on Oct 27th 2009
Too bad she didn't have a gps, it would have been an uneventful flight. I've read the actual reports of her last few minutes of flight. They just missed the tiny island and ran out of fuel flying a pattern back and forth looking for it. They might have survived the ditching or they may have been killed on impact. If they ever find the parts of the plane, which are sitting somewhere on the bottom of the pacific in the vicinity of Howland Island, they might be able to figure that part out. She wasn't a great pilot, she just had a good promoter. The story about her real life probably wouldn't be interesting enough to make a great movie about, so "poetic license" is needed, and used.
Linda Moon at 8:20PM on Nov 1st 2009
...not a great movie, but I found it relaxing and enjoyable, mainly because of Hilary Swank.
Peter at 6:48PM on Nov 7th 2009
I enjoyed this a lot, it really made me feel what a radical adventurer a pilot must have prior to WWII. Hilary Swank looks just like Earhart and for a bio-pic, I truly enjoyed it, esp. how well they visually captured the period. It was not a bombastic, noisy thrill a minute roller coaster, but a leisurely and simply told story. I also realized what an amazing name Earhart (Airheart) is for this lady!